Re: The reality of energy.
Y.Porat
> On Feb 23, 4:48 pm, Occidental wrote:
>
>
>
> >< Discussion in physics refer to energy as if it were as fundamental a part of the universe as space, time and matter. In Newtonian mechanics, energy is a useful mathematical abstraction, but not a directly measurable part of any dynamical system. Presumably this is also true in Relativity, despite mass/energy equivalence.
>
> Before replying to this message I glanced through the previous nine
> replies. As I expected, none of them defined "energy". Having long
> ago noticed that unless a key word is defined nobody understands what
> other people mean when they use it, I defined it thus:
> "Energy" is the ability to do work, an ability that is possessed by
> organized portions of matter.
>
> glird
---------------------
just mass in motion!!
no need for big philosophy !
E = mc^2
that s all the story !!
what is unbelievable is
that so few people understand it:
it started with that block of understanding that
energy has mass
started with the idiotic notion that
no mass can reach c
but all those dumbo s (mathematicians )that consider themselves
physicists -
could not think about the possibility
that there is an exception to that 'rule'
ie
the photon CAN move at c !!!
actually you could see it based on the
**trend** of experimental data
ie
as mass is smaller and smaller
it can reach closer and closer to c !!!
what can be simpler than that ??!!
not to mention that
hf ie h contains mass !!!
not relativistic and not shmelativistc mass just the one kind that
exits !!!
no need to invent each Sunday and Monday
i new kind of mass !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
------------
BURT
Kinetic energy is mass. Light has no kinetic energy because C is a
constant.
Mitch Raemsch
Y.Porat
--------------------
1
in macrocosm
energy is mass in motion
no sane physicist denies it
2
there is no principal difference about
energy
if it i s done by constant or variable velocity
iow
constant or not constant velocity is not relevant !! to that issue
Y.P
----------------------
Y.Porat
> On Feb 27, 12:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 1:22 pm, ben6993 <ben6...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Energy" is the ability to do work, an ability that is possessed by
> > > > organized portions of matter.
>
> > > is more complicated than the definition above:
> > > "The thermodynamic entropy S, often simply called the entropy in the
> > > context of thermodynamics, can provide a measure of the amount of
> > > energy in a physical system that cannot be used to do work." (http://
> > > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy)
>
> > > If energy is the ability to do work, but at the same time entropy
> > > implies that some portion of energy is not available to do work, then
> > > how do we re-define that portion of the energy in a system not
> > > available to do work? Is there a more complex definition of energy?
>
> > That's actually an excellent point. Kinetic energy, one of the forms
> > of energy, is divided into stochastic and collective energy. The
> > collective energy is the kind of thing you would write (1/2)mv^2 for a
> > baseball of mass m. Stochastic energy is that which is indicated (but
> > not measured) by a thermometer; it is the *random* kinetic energy of
> > the individual molecules in the body. The former can be wholly
> > converted into work. The latter can only be partially converted, with
> > the limit set by Carnot's Theorem.
>
> > In addition, rest energy (the energy associated with rest mass) can't
> > be converted into work, but the entropic definition above has nothing
> > to do with this.
>
> > I don't know of any other cases, off the top of my head.
>
> Defining energy in terms of work is just the 19th century macroscopic
> approach to physics before the atomic basis of nature was available.
> It is not logical to define the parts in terms of pieces of the
> whole since this misses out the synergistic component of bringing
> parts together: this is cookery. The macro (like averages) must be
> defined in terms of the micro. This is why Maxwell's Equations of EM
> is a statistical theory and NOT a fundamental theory of physics.
---------------------
that
quote
'since this misses out the synergistic component of bringing
parts together: this is cookery
end of quote
that cookery that you are talking about
showes us clearly
that biding energies = mass loss!!
iow
lost of mass that is transformed to
ENERGY!!
(by **exactly !!!****
again - *exactly * E=mc^2
is a wonderful prove that
energy is
MASS IN MOTION !!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------
Inertial
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7c250b1a-2618-493a...@q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 27, 3:54 am, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 23, 4:48 pm, Occidental wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >< Discussion in physics refer to energy as if it were as fundamental a
>> >part of the universe as space, time and matter. In Newtonian mechanics,
>> >energy is a useful mathematical abstraction, but not a directly
>> >measurable part of any dynamical system. Presumably this is also true in
>> >Relativity, despite mass/energy equivalence.
>>
>> Before replying to this message I glanced through the previous nine
>> replies. As I expected, none of them defined "energy". Having long
>> ago noticed that unless a key word is defined nobody understands what
>> other people mean when they use it, I defined it thus:
>> "Energy" is the ability to do work, an ability that is possessed by
>> organized portions of matter.
>>
>> glird
>
> ---------------------
> just mass in motion!!
That is only for KINETIC ENERGY. That is not the only sort of energy.
> no need for big philosophy !
>
> E = mc^2
> that s all the story !!
That relates the rest mass to the rest energy. So the mass in that case is
NOT in motion
> what is unbelievable is
> that so few people understand it:
What is unbelievable is the amount of crap you post out of total ignorance
.. especially as you've had it explained to you so many times before. You
are incapable of learning or thinking rationally
> it started with that block of understanding that
> energy has mass
> started with the idiotic notion that
> no mass can reach c
It can't
> but all those dumbo s (mathematicians )that consider themselves
> physicists -
> could not think about the possibility
> that there is an exception to that 'rule'
There is no need for one
> ie
> the photon CAN move at c !!!
And they have no mass. Gees. . We've been thru this SOOOOO many times
before
> actually you could see it based on the
> **trend** of experimental data
> ie
> as mass is smaller and smaller
> it can reach closer and closer to c !!!
> what can be simpler than that ??!!
Exactly .. and to get TO c it must have mass of ZERO.
> not to mention that
> hf ie h contains mass !!!
h is a ratio between energy and frequency. Of course it will have units of
mass. That doesn't say ANYTHING about energy being mass in motion.
> not relativistic and not shmelativistc mass just the one kind that
> exits !!!
So you keep shouting. Yet relativistic mass is well defined. You ignoring
it doesn't make it not exist.
> no need to invent each Sunday and Monday
> i new kind of mass !!!
Noone other than you would be stupid enough to do that
Inertial
Of course they do .. you're only describing kinetic energy
> 2
> there is no principal difference about
> energy
> if it i s done by constant or variable velocity
> iow
> constant or not constant velocity is not relevant !! to that issue
> Y.P
You do realize, Porat, that you are talking to Mitch .. who is nothing but a
troll and posts random meaningless combinations of words in reply to
anything. He may well by a robot.
Inertial
Indeed it does .. been telling you that for a while.
> iow
> lost of mass that is transformed to
> ENERGY!!
Indeed it is .. and that does not need to be mass IN MOTION. It is the REST
mass.
> (by **exactly !!!****
> again - *exactly * E=mc^2
Yeup
> is a wonderful prove that
> energy is
> MASS IN MOTION !!
NO ... because E = mc^2 is the relationship between REST energy and REST
mass when NOT IN MOTION
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
----------------
psychopath
Y.P
------------------
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
------------------
but i am talking to you as well
idiot crook as well
and you said just above that
in mass there is no motion
inner motion
EVEN IF AN IDIOT LIKE YOU
DO NOT SENSE IT WITH IS IMMEDIATE SENSES !!
therefore YOU SAY THAT energy that is emitted during
atomic or nuc reactions
is not mass in motion ...
while experimentally it is shown
that th e mass loss in those reactions
is exactly the energy emitted there !!!
exactly by the formula
E=mc^2 !!!
and you are the last one to tell me about those reactions !
2
who are you to teach me physics ??
(indeed you can teach me about 'curved space time
(:-)
but i will teach you about instead about my Circlons
even if those last ones are just nice guesses
btw
dont answer me about section 2 just above
it is a waist of time for all of us
Y.P
-------------------
Inertial
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0b94d49c-4bb7-4151...@e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
No .. because I had not posted in this thread. You are lying again.
> idiot crook as well
Typical porat non-response
> and you said just above that
> in mass there is no motion
I said rest mass. A mass at rest is BY DEFINITION not in motion.
> inner motion
That is pretty much irrelevant to the formula for rest mass of the system /
object.
Though some proportion of the mass from a system with internal motion comes
from the relativistic mass of the moving components.
> EVEN IF AN IDIOT LIKE YOU
> DO NOT SENSE IT WITH IS IMMEDIATE SENSES !!
>
> therefore YOU SAY THAT energy that is emitted during
> atomic or nuc reactions
> is not mass in motion ...
If it is E = mc^2, then it is not mass in motion.
If it is E = Mc^2 (where M is relativistic mass) then it is
> while experimentally it is shown
> that th e mass loss in those reactions
> is exactly the energy emitted there !!!
> exactly by the formula
> E=mc^2 !!!
Which is the rest energy of the rest mass that is lost
> and you are the last one to tell me about those reactions !
You are incapable of learning, so not a lot of point. But others need to
read it.
> 2
> who are you to teach me physics ??
Someone who understands it
> (indeed you can teach me about 'curved space time
> (:-)
If you like. .though you have neough problems with far simpler concepts.
> but i will teach you about instead about my Circlons
Not interested in your nonsense
> even if those last ones are just nice guesses
> btw
> dont answer me about section 2 just above
> it is a waist of time for all of us
Too later. If you don't want something answered .. don't ask it.
Inertial
"psychopath Y.P" .. how true that is. Incapable of rational discussion (or
rational thought) .. he's a senile old man with delusions of grandeur and
anger management issues who should be on medication for his illness.
Y.Porat
> On Feb 23, 4:48 pm, Occidental wrote:
>
>
>
> >< Discussion in physics refer to energy as if it were as fundamental a part of the universe as space, time and matter. In Newtonian mechanics, energy is a useful mathematical abstraction, but not a directly measurable part of any dynamical system. Presumably this is also true in Relativity, despite mass/energy equivalence.
>
> Before replying to this message I glanced through the previous nine
> replies. As I expected, none of them defined "energy". Having long
> ago noticed that unless a key word is defined nobody understands what
> other people mean when they use it, I defined it thus:
> organized portions of matter.
>
--------------------
so what is that thing
that enables those 'portions of matter'
to do work ??
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
BURT
Gamma for motion-flow of energy.
> 2
> there is no principal difference about
> energy
> if it i s done by constant or variable velocity
> iow
> constant or not constant velocity is not relevant !! to that issue
> Y.P
> ----------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
ben6993
> Though some proportion of the mass from a system with internal motion comes
> from the relativistic mass of the moving components.
A couple of questions:
1. Assume a photon sets out from a distant galaxy with energy at
outset of E=hf.
Although from its own point of view it keeps its energy constant,
by the time it reaches us it has redshifted quite a long way and to us
it appeard to have a reduced energy,
can we think of that discrepancy between higher energy in its
framework and its lower energy in our framework as being the entropy
gain of the photon?
I.e. can entropy be though of as the discrepancy of the same energy
when viewed in two different frameworks?
2. Assume that a rocket was using the entire mass of the universe as
fuel for its burners in order to accelerate closer and closer to speed
c.
(Need to overlook a few major, practical details which may be
important, eg how does it pick up more fuel without slowing down, how
does its engine use dark matter and dark energy?)
The rocket cannot reach speed c, as the universe has a finite mass.
But the universe cannot lose energy and so all that is left is the
rocket travelling at immense speed with a relativistic mass the size
of the universe.
(Also overlooked is that not all energy can be useful.)
The experiment started with a small rocket travelling at low speed in
a massive universe (full of lots of useful energy in that universe,
i.e. relative low entropy) and ended with a massive rocket travelling
at very high speed (not much useful energy left in its framework as
presumably entropy is now very high after all that work done has been
done in accelerating the rocket.).
Although there is very little useful energy left within its framework,
if the rocket were to be able to collide with something outside its
framework (eg neighbouring Big Bang 2 say) a rocket travelling at near
speed c with the mass of the universe should be able to do quite a lot
of work.
There is probably a flaw in the above arguments. These are not fixed
ideas ... I am just trying to learn.
Androcles
"ben6993" <ben...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0de316c-4d2b-48a5...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
A couple of questions:
===================================================
Take a math course, you won't learn anything from an ignorant
idiot like "Inert" relativ...@rest.com.
Inertial
"ben6993" <ben...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0de316c-4d2b-48a5...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Though some proportion of the mass from a system with internal motion
>> comes
>> from the relativistic mass of the moving components.
>
> A couple of questions:
>
> 1. Assume a photon sets out from a distant galaxy with energy at
> outset of E=hf.
OK.
> Although from its own point of view it keeps its energy constant,
Photons don't have a point of view (in the sense that they don't have any
inertial frame of reference where they are at rest). The energy of a photon
is what happens to some other object when the photon 'hits' it.
> by the time it reaches us it has redshifted quite a long way and to us
> it appeard to have a reduced energy,
It always had reduced energy to us.
> can we think of that discrepancy between higher energy in its
> framework and its lower energy in our framework as being the entropy
> gain of the photon?
Nothing in the photon changed. The energy it 'has' in our frame is constant
the whole time. The energy it 'has' in the frame of the star that emitted
it is constant the whole time.
There is no change
> I.e. can entropy be though of as the discrepancy of the same energy
> when viewed in two different frameworks?
>
> 2. Assume that a rocket was using the entire mass of the universe as
> fuel for its burners in order to accelerate closer and closer to speed
> c.
OK. A tad impractical, of course :)
> (Need to overlook a few major, practical details which may be
> important, eg how does it pick up more fuel without slowing down, how
> does its engine use dark matter and dark energy?)
> The rocket cannot reach speed c,
That's right
> as the universe has a finite mass.
> But the universe cannot lose energy and so all that is left is the
> rocket travelling at immense speed with a relativistic mass the size
> of the universe.
> (Also overlooked is that not all energy can be useful.)
Sorta
> The experiment started with a small rocket travelling at low speed in
> a massive universe (full of lots of useful energy in that universe,
> i.e. relative low entropy) and ended with a massive rocket travelling
> at very high speed (not much useful energy left in its framework as
> presumably entropy is now very high after all that work done has been
> done in accelerating the rocket.).
I'm not sure how the mass gets into the rocket in this idea, if it wasn't
there to start with.
> Although there is very little useful energy left within its framework,
> if the rocket were to be able to collide with something outside its
> framework (eg neighbouring Big Bang 2 say) a rocket travelling at near
> speed c with the mass of the universe should be able to do quite a lot
> of work.
And a good deal of damage
> There is probably a flaw in the above arguments. These are not fixed
> ideas ... I am just trying to learn.
I'm not sure what the argument is.
Inertial
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote in message
news:NcMin.107500$_W6....@newsfe30.ams2...
Far more than from a well known liar like Androcles, who cannot understand
basic math and logic, let alone physics.
Y.y.Porat
------------------
th eretarded psychopath clames
that the amount of enery emitted by the sun
in half a second( HALF A SECOND)
'**is the same** as in
ONE SECOND !!
got it who is that retarded Josef Goebbels ???
even Goebbels had just one name
that psychopath pig crook anonymous
is called
1 artful
2 inertial
3 his real name !!
sometimes 1 and 2 in one thread !!
got it readers with whom we are dealing ???
Y.P
-----------------------------
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kinetic flow energy is mass.
Mitch Raemsch
ben6993
> Photons don't have a point of view (in the sense that they don't have any
> inertial frame of reference where they are at rest). The energy of a photon
> is what happens to some other object when the photon 'hits' it.
I accept that I can't use the photon's viewpoint. (You know I wrongly
keep trying to imagine what it is like from the photon's viewpoint.)
> > by the time it reaches us it has redshifted quite a long way and to us
> > it appeard to have a reduced energy,
> It always had reduced energy to us.
OK, and
re-phrasing: We calculate it has less energy (because of redshift)
that an observer seeing a similar photon soon after its emission would
have calculated it. And the greater the redshift, the less is the
energy we calculate.
> > can we think of that discrepancy between higher energy in its
> > framework and its lower energy in our framework as being the entropy
> > gain of the photon?
> Nothing in the photon changed. The energy it 'has' in our frame is constant
> the whole time. The energy it 'has' in the frame of the star that emitted
> it is constant the whole time.
> There is no change
Agreed. Re-phrasing again: I was originally wondering if the lower
energy in our frame compared to the higher energy in the frame of
emission of the photon was comparable to a higher entropy state in our
frame. Ie is it really less energy or is it merely less useable
energy. But I can't see it now. It must be less energy.
It is odd that redshifted light gives less energy on impact, even
though the speed of the photon is still c despite the high speed of
separation of the two galaxies where emission and absorption occur.
> > 2. Assume that a rocket was using the entire mass of the universe as
> > fuel for its burners in order to accelerate closer and closer to speed
> > c.
>
> OK. A tad impractical, of course :)
<snip>
> I'm not sure how the mass gets into the rocket in this idea, if it wasn't
> there to start with.
I was thinking of relativistic increase in mass through high speed.
<snip>
> I'm not sure what the argument is.
The idea was of doing work with the whole energy of (or most of) the
universe and so greatly increasing its entropy. But wondering if the
resultant high entropy system could still do work outside the system.
Ie energy can be different frames but can entropy also be different in
different frames.
Inertial
"Y.y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1a7d7667-41bb-4d41...@g7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
What is it you are claiming this time, Porat?
> that the amount of enery emitted by the sun
> in half a second( HALF A SECOND)
> '**is the same** as in
> ONE SECOND !!
I wouldn't be surprised if you claimed that at all. Of course, *I* have
never claimed such a thing, nor said anything that could imply that. In
fact I have said the exact opposite from my first postings here.
> got it who is that retarded Josef Goebbels ???
You are. We all know that.
> even Goebbels had just one name
> that psychopath pig crook anonymous
> is called
> 1 artful
> 2 inertial
> 3 his real name !!
> sometimes 1 and 2 in one thread !!
>
> got it readers with whom we are dealing ???
Yes .. they all understand you are a senile old man with anger management
issues who need psychological help.
And as I Have explained, I am someone who was away from home and couldn't
use his usual newsgroup server and so used a different account.
So .when are you going to stop lying Porat?
Inertial
> On Mar 1, 9:59 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>> Photons don't have a point of view (in the sense that they don't have any
>> inertial frame of reference where they are at rest). The energy of a
>> photon
>> is what happens to some other object when the photon 'hits' it.
>
> I accept that I can't use the photon's viewpoint. (You know I wrongly
> keep trying to imagine what it is like from the photon's viewpoint.)
:):)
>> > by the time it reaches us it has redshifted quite a long way and to us
>> > it appeard to have a reduced energy,
>
>> It always had reduced energy to us.
>
> OK, and
> re-phrasing: We calculate it has less energy (because of redshift)
> that an observer seeing a similar photon soon after its emission would
> have calculated it.
No .. we don't. The rephrasing doesn't help, you still have the same
misconception. All similar (co-moving) observers record the SAME frequency.
Red shift is only able to be used as a measure of distance on the assumption
that objects further away from us are moving away faster than ones closer.
It is NOT the case that the light from a distant star is more and more red
shifts due to observers being further away .. its relativy velocity that
does this.
As far as we are concerned (ie in our frame of reference), the frequency of
light leaving the star is the same as the frequency of light arriving here
(ignoring such things as light slowing when it travels thru air etc)
> And the greater the redshift, the less is the
> energy we calculate.
Yes .. because we are moving away from the source
>> > can we think of that discrepancy between higher energy in its
>> > framework and its lower energy in our framework as being the entropy
>> > gain of the photon?
>
>> Nothing in the photon changed. The energy it 'has' in our frame is
>> constant
>> the whole time. The energy it 'has' in the frame of the star that
>> emitted
>> it is constant the whole time.
>
>> There is no change
>
> Agreed. Re-phrasing again: I was originally wondering if the lower
> energy in our frame compared to the higher energy in the frame of
> emission of the photon was comparable to a higher entropy state in our
> frame.
Nope .. as it is all symmetric. Unless entropy is frame dependent.
> Ie is it really less energy
Yes. Given Energy being the frame dependent value we use.
EG. if you throw a ball, in your frame the moving ball now has a lot of
kinetic energy. In the frame of the thrown ball, it is at rest (ignoring
gravity etc for now) and has no kinetic energy.
> or is it merely less useable
> energy. But I can't see it now. It must be less energy.
Energy, like velocity and momentum, is frame dependent.
> It is odd that redshifted light gives less energy on impact,
Not really
> even
> though the speed of the photon is still c
But its momentum is less
> despite the high speed of
> separation of the two galaxies where emission and absorption occur.
Not really that odd, once you get it :). Do some reading on relativistic
dopler effect
>> > 2. Assume that a rocket was using the entire mass of the universe as
>> > fuel for its burners in order to accelerate closer and closer to speed
>> > c.
>>
>> OK. A tad impractical, of course :)
>
> <snip>
>
>> I'm not sure how the mass gets into the rocket in this idea, if it wasn't
>> there to start with.
>
> I was thinking of relativistic increase in mass through high speed.
>
> <snip>
>> I'm not sure what the argument is.
>
> The idea was of doing work with the whole energy of (or most of) the
> universe and so greatly increasing its entropy. But wondering if the
> resultant high entropy system could still do work outside the system.
> Ie energy can be different frames but can entropy also be different in
> different frames.
I'm not sure about entropy.
BURT
> "ben6993" <ben6...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What about negative or anti energy proposed by Stephen Hawking?
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
"BURT" <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:89bd5bdb-1ca7-4763...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Fuck off Mitch-bot
BURT
> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Does Hawking upset you or something?
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
Fuck off Mitch-bot
BURT
Mitch Raemsch
ben6993
> "ben6993" <ben6...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<snip>
> > And the greater the redshift, the less is the
> > energy we calculate.
> Yes .. because we are moving away from the source
Sorry, I was not clear enough about what I meant. I used the word
redshift to imply that the observer was moving rapidly away from the
emission source. I knew that you don't get redshift simply through
distance alone. But as Hubble related the distance of separation to
the speed of separation, it is the size of the speed of separation
which gives the amount of redshift.
> EG. if you throw a ball, in your frame the moving ball now has a lot of
> kinetic energy. In the frame of the thrown ball, it is at rest (ignoring
> gravity etc for now) and has no kinetic energy.
The catcher of a hard, fast ball yields or retracts the hands to
reduce the relative velocity of the ball. That works and seems easy
to understand.
But with light you can't actually reduce its relative velocity. No
matter how fast you yield your hands or how fast the galaxy is
retreating from the emission galaxy, the photon still moves at
relative constant speed c. Yet the light does have less energy in
our retreating frame.
> But its momentum is less
Yes, I have checked, E=pc so p= h/wavelength which reduces with
redshift.
It does seem odd, but tracing back to where the oddness starts, it
seems to start with the existence of the redshift. Though, of course,
the redshift does exist.
Light always travels at speed c compared to any observer, but the
effort of keeping up this speed when an observer is retreating fast
makes the photon seem tired to the retreating observer. Ie energy is
lost (somewhere in this process) in the maintenance of speed c. That
doesn't sound so odd.
I will keep reading/learning.
Inertial
> On Mar 1, 11:11 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "ben6993" <ben6...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
>> > And the greater the redshift, the less is the
>> > energy we calculate.
>
>> Yes .. because we are moving away from the source
>
> Sorry, I was not clear enough about what I meant. I used the word
> redshift to imply that the observer was moving rapidly away from the
> emission source. I knew that you don't get redshift simply through
> distance alone. But as Hubble related the distance of separation to
> the speed of separation, it is the size of the speed of separation
> which gives the amount of redshift.
That really makes no difference here .. in our frame of reference the light
left the start red-shifted .. it does not become redshifted along the way.
>> EG. if you throw a ball, in your frame the moving ball now has a lot of
>> kinetic energy. In the frame of the thrown ball, it is at rest (ignoring
>> gravity etc for now) and has no kinetic energy.
>
> The catcher of a hard, fast ball yields or retracts the hands to
> reduce the relative velocity of the ball. That works and seems easy
> to understand.
Yes .. but not really relevant to what we're talking about
> But with light you can't actually reduce its relative velocity. No
> matter how fast you yield your hands or how fast the galaxy is
> retreating from the emission galaxy, the photon still moves at
> relative constant speed c. Yet the light does have less energy in
> our retreating frame.
That's right. Have a look at relativistic Doppler shift to see how it works
>> But its momentum is less
>
> Yes, I have checked, E=pc so p= h/wavelength which reduces with
> redshift.
> It does seem odd, but tracing back to where the oddness starts, it
> seems to start with the existence of the redshift. Though, of course,
> the redshift does exist.
That's right. Have a look at relativistic Doppler shift to see how it works
> Light always travels at speed c compared to any observer, but the
> effort of keeping up this speed when an observer is retreating fast
> makes the photon seem tired to the retreating observer. Ie energy is
> lost (somewhere in this process) in the maintenance of speed c. That
> doesn't sound so odd.
It may not sound odd .. but it is not what happens. There is no tiring of
light. It doesn't take any 'effort' for light to travel at c. That energy
'loss' is from the moment the light is emitted. It is not something that
happens over distance. That's where you are getting confused.
> I will keep reading/learning.
Have a look at relativistic Doppler shift to see how it works.
ben6993
> "ben6993" <ben6...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Light always travels at speed c compared to any observer, but the
> > effort of keeping up this speed when an observer is retreating fast
> > makes the photon seem tired to the retreating observer. Ie energy is
> > lost (somewhere in this process) in the maintenance of speed c. That
> > doesn't sound so odd.
> It may not sound odd .. but it is not what happens. There is no tiring of
> light. It doesn't take any 'effort' for light to travel at c. That energy
> 'loss' is from the moment the light is emitted. It is not something that
> happens over distance. That's where you are getting confused.
I know that I have much to learn but I did not think that the
'distance' aspect was confusing me. I think it was again a problem
with my previous wording. I knew that distance has nothing to do
with causing a redshift except inasfar as an observer (or the
observer's galaxy) needed distance and time to build up a high speed
worthy of calling it a Hubble size redshift. I agree that a minute
redshift could be obtained instantly by just stepping back, away, from
a torch shone at you, and that would have done just as well as an
example.
> Have a look at relativistic Doppler shift to see how it works.
Will do. Particularly trying to understand the reason why the photon
energy is reduced in the observer's framework.
Y.Porat
--------------------
what is so diffficult for you to understand??:
if the target is 'running away from the
moving photons
then
LESS PHOTON UNITS * PER SECOND*
ARE HITTING THE TARGET !!!
less photon units = less enrgy !!!
no need to stumble on entropy questions
and that again shows you that
photon energy emission is
TIME DEPENDENT !!
Y.Porat
----------------------
ben6993
> what is so diffficult for you to understand??:
> if the target is 'running away from the
> moving photons
> then
> LESS PHOTON UNITS * PER SECOND*
> ARE HITTING THE TARGET !!!
> less photon units = less enrgy !!!
> no need to stumble on entropy questions
> and that again shows you that
> photon energy emission is
> TIME DEPENDENT !!
Yes, the target is running away from the photon, but the photon is
still moving at relative speed c no matter fast the observer retreats.
Also, it is less energy even when only one photon is involved.
I can understand (I trust) a ball being caught by a retreating
catcher, and also doppler for sound waves, but the fact is that you
cannot reduce your relative speed wrt a photon no matter how fast you
retreat. Even though you do not reduce the photon's relative speed,
the momentum is reduced and the energy is reduced. So the retreat
works wrt energy and momentum (p) yet fails to work with the speed. I
want to understand why E and p are reduced, and I am not sure that
knowing all the maths formula will help me to know 'why'. But I will
try.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Light has no kinetic energy because C is a constant.
Mitch Raemsch
Mahipal7638
> On Mar 2, 3:10 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > what is so diffficult for you to understand??:
> > if the target is 'running away from the
> > moving photons
> > then
> > LESS PHOTON UNITS * PER SECOND*
> > ARE HITTING THE TARGET !!!
> > less photon units = less enrgy !!!
> > no need to stumble on entropy questions
> > and that again shows you that
> > photon energy emission is
> > TIME DEPENDENT !!
>
> Yes, the target is running away from the photon, but the photon is
> still moving at relative speed c no matter fast the observer retreats.
> Also, it is less energy even when only one photon is involved.
Somewhere you apologized for imaging traveling at the speed of a
photon. Why?! Is that thought experiment restricted to a teenager
Einstein only?
Consider this Ben, there far more potential frames of references than
any theoretical model can claim to have considered. I used to call
this the Infinite Perspectives Machine(s) -- plural or otherwise.
> I can understand (I trust) a ball being caught by a retreating
> catcher, and also doppler for sound waves, but the fact is that you
> cannot reduce your relative speed wrt a photon no matter how fast you
> retreat. Even though you do not reduce the photon's relative speed,
> the momentum is reduced and the energy is reduced. So the retreat
> works wrt energy and momentum (p) yet fails to work with the speed. I
> want to understand why E and p are reduced, and I am not sure that
> knowing all the maths formula will help me to know 'why'. But I will
> try.
There is no "try" only "I will do." Perhaps you might learn what I
mean from this link:
http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/opal/gammagamma/gg-tutorial.html
While electrons collide, photons are absorbed or released. Except for
the low-lower-lowest collision cross-sectional area graphed measures
at the site above for photon-photon collisions.
Google, The truly DoNoEvil, is your friend if you know what to search.
But shhhhh... don't giveaway your search strings/spellings to anyone
by the physical act of typing. I know, they are not watching the
keystrokes. I must hanson laugh now! Ahahahahahahaha....
Enjo(y)...
--
Mahipal
Just My GPS And Me At The Edge Of The Universe
Just My GRB And Me At The Edge Of The Universe
Just My GOD And Me At The Edge Of The Universe
Just My DOG And Me At The Edge Of The Universe -- Bee Gees.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
The gravity geometry of the Sun intersects with that surrounding the
Earth. There is more than one geometry in one space.
Mitch Raemsch
ben6993
<snip>
Thanks very much for the link.
Apologetic? Just being polite and trying not to step too much outside
physics while learning about physics.
Especially when I have already had an idea that the BB universe may be
an E-M emission, which maybe is just a little wrong.
But that may be only because I do not know enough about non E-M mass/
energy. So you can see it is not a fixed idea or obsession.
Inertial
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:117c06fa-70f8-4fee...@j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Its not
> if the target is 'running away from the
> moving photons
> then
> LESS PHOTON UNITS * PER SECOND*
> ARE HITTING THE TARGET !!!
Yeup (close enough)
> less photon units = less enrgy !!!
Yeup .. this is what I've been trying to tell YOU !!!
> no need to stumble on entropy questions
> and that again shows you that
> photon energy emission is
> TIME DEPENDENT !!
No .. it does NOT. It shows that the number of photons ARRIVING is time
dependent. You just explained it that way. GEEES!
Inertial
> On Mar 2, 3:10 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> what is so diffficult for you to understand??:
>> if the target is 'running away from the
>> moving photons
>> then
>> LESS PHOTON UNITS * PER SECOND*
>> ARE HITTING THE TARGET !!!
>> less photon units = less enrgy !!!
>> no need to stumble on entropy questions
>> and that again shows you that
>> photon energy emission is
>> TIME DEPENDENT !!
>
> Yes, the target is running away from the photon, but the photon is
> still moving at relative speed c no matter fast the observer retreats.
> Also, it is less energy even when only one photon is involved.
Yeup. Look at Relativistic Doppler. The frequency is lower, so the photon
energy is lower.
Inertial
BAHAHA .. what a load of crap.
ben6993
> Have a look at relativistic Doppler shift to see how it works
I have started. The maths will keep me busy for a while longer. I
will look at cosmological redshift and gravitational redshift, too.
The idea of transverse redshift is very interesting, and I am
wondering if there is a transverse redshift element component to the
cosmological redshift ... but I will keep reading to find out.
Thanks.
Inertial
Enjoy :)
Androcles
Thanks.
===========================================
Have a look at relativistic transverse blue shift and see how it
doesn't work.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img107.gif
BURT
> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
If light's energy comes from its constant speed it would have only one
energy.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Light energy is oscillating energy size to point mass. Light is
spreading out energy that comes back together as a point of light and
then spreads out again. Bond energy for the strong and electric
fields to the atomic shells have finite density energy filling their
fields. But particles are C squared point energies multiplied by gamma
for there motion and divided by gamma for their gravity. Gamma One
gives the fundamental point particle energy.
Mitch Raemsch
glird
> On Feb 27, 3:54 am, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > "Energy" is the ability to do work, an ability that
> > is possessed by organized portions of matter.
> so what is that thing
> that enables those 'portions of matter'
> to do work ??
Pressure, of, by and against matter.
in Physics, work = md, where d is a distance. From F = ma we get, m
= f/a. Substituting this value of m into the first equation we get
w = f(cm)/(cm/sec^2) = pressure per second per second.
glird
glird
>
>>< by the time it reaches us it has redshifted quite a long way and to us it appeard to have a reduced energy,>
>
>It always had reduced energy to us.
>>< can we think of that discrepancy between higher energy in its framework and its lower energy in our framework as being the entropy gain of the photon?>
That depends on which of the present two diametrically different two
definitions of "entropy" you use.
>Nothing in the photon changed. The energy it 'has' in our frame is constant the whole time. The energy it 'has' in the frame of the star that emitted it is constant the whole time. There is no change >
Bullshit! as proved by the compton effect, every time a photon
interacts with an atom it happens to pass, a tiny bit of its energy is
transferred to the atom and the light-waves continue on, at c, with a
trifle les energy remaining in them. THAT's why the light shifts to
the red.
> >>>Have a look at relativistic Doppler shift to see how it works. >
>
> >> Will do. Particularly trying to understand the reason why the photon energy is reduced in the observer's framework. >
The "relavistic" Doppler shift won't help you understand anything at
all. (As of now, the red shift isn't even attributed to the
recessional velocity of the source, It is asssigned to an expansion of
empty space itself!!
(Nonsense breeds insanity breeds physics.)
Mahipal7638
What timezone are you in and how much sleep have you had after all
that moonshine? What Physics, where work=md, are you thinking of?!
In Physics, the real world kind, work=fd. Force distance. At best
your md is mass distance. Or a md doctor who doesn't make house calls,
in the state of Maryland MD. A stupid typing joke, I confess.
Please try not to help when you're not cognizant of what you type.
Tia. Seeing your name/alias in Usenet is not worth the ignorance you
convey. Just in and from my frame of reference.
Enjo(y)...
--
Mahipal
In Today's real-time search and links world, perhaps Usenet should be
called Usenot.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Expanding space creates new points in the light sphere oscillation red
shifting its energy by distance traveled through. Expanding space red
shifts light in cosmology.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
"glird" <gl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fd0569e7-5fa1-42a3...@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 2, 5:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>>
>>>< by the time it reaches us it has redshifted quite a long way and to us
>>>it appeard to have a reduced energy,>
>>
>>It always had reduced energy to us.
>
>>>< can we think of that discrepancy between higher energy in its framework
>>>and its lower energy in our framework as being the entropy gain of the
>>>photon?>
>
> That depends on which of the present two diametrically different two
> definitions of "entropy" you use.
>
>>Nothing in the photon changed. The energy it 'has' in our frame is
>>constant the whole time. The energy it 'has' in the frame of the star
>>that emitted it is constant the whole time. There is no change >
>
> Bullshit!
Nope.
> as proved by the compton effect, every time a photon
> interacts with an atom it happens to pass, a tiny bit of its energy is
> transferred to the atom and the light-waves continue on, at c, with a
> trifle les energy remaining in them. THAT's why the light shifts to
> the red.
No .. I am talking about red-shift due to Doppler shift.
>> >>>Have a look at relativistic Doppler shift to see how it works. >
>>
>> >> Will do. Particularly trying to understand the reason why the photon
>> >> energy is reduced in the observer's framework. >
>
> The "relavistic" Doppler shift won't help you understand anything at
> all.
Except redshift due to difference in velocities, which is what we were
discussing
> (As of now, the red shift isn't even attributed to the
> recessional velocity of the source, It is asssigned to an expansion of
> empty space itself!!
Which causes objects to move apart causing Doppler effects
> (Nonsense breeds insanity breeds physics.)
Indeed it does .. please stop it.
ben6993
>
> - Show quoted text -
I can see that the Compton effect is relevant (next on my reading
list!) but is a separate issue needing to be considered in addition to
each of the redshifts caused by the velocity of observer, spacetime
inflation and gravitation.
In the Compton Effect, the incoming (indivisible) photon will be
absorbed by the atom and a new (indivisible) photon emitted. I don't
know what determines the difference in energies. I suppose it would
be a slightly different outcome for different atoms as they won't all
have an identical set of quanta available within them for emission.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Expanding space that light travels through expands its wavelength.
Mitch Raemsch
glird
> > > --------------------
> > > so what is that thing
> > > that enables those 'portions of matter'
> > > to do work ??
>
> > Pressure, of, by and against matter.
> > in Physics, work = md, where d is a distance. From F = ma we get, m
> > = f/a. Substituting this value of m into the first equation we get w = f(cm)/(cm/sec^2) = pressure per second per second.
> > glird
>
>< What timezone are you in and how much sleep have you had after all that moonshine? What Physics, where work=md, are you thinking of?! >
i KNEW something was wrong so I stopped in the middle of my reply.
> In Physics, the real world kind, work=fd. Force distance. At best your md is mass distance. Or a mad doctor who doesn't make house calls, in the state of Maryland MD. A stupid typing joke, I confess. >
Thank you for correcting my stupid error. Here is what I started to
show:
In Physics, work = fd, where d is a distance. From F = ma we get (by
substitution),
w = mad = grams x cm/sec^2 x cm
= grams x cm^2/sec^2
= mv^2.
Taken to the relativistic limit of v, that becomes
e = w = mc^2,
in which m (in grams) is the pressure a body exerts against a scale.
glird
BURT
Light has a constant kinetic energy by its uniform speed of C. Light
absorbed sideways on to motion can have no energy shift.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
Pressure is out and mass acceleration/deceleration weight is in.
Weight makes motion detectable.
Mitch Raemsch
Y.Porat
> "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1a7d7667-41bb-4d41...@g7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 12:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:215076eb-d356-45d2...@b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Feb 28, 10:20 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:c464de34-eea3-4d29...@33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > On Feb 28, 4:13 am, maxwell <s...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Feb 27, 12:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > On Feb 27, 1:22 pm, ben6993 <ben6...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > > > "Energy" is the ability to do work, an ability that is
> >> >> >> > > > possessed
> >> >> >> > > > by
> >> >> >> > > > organized portions of matter.
>
> >> >> >> > > energy
> >> >> >> > > is more complicated than the definition above:
> >> >> >> > > "The thermodynamic entropy S, often simply called the entropy
> >> >> >> > > in
> >> >> >> > > the
> >> >> >> > > context of thermodynamics, can provide a measure of the amount
> >> >> >> > > of
> >> >> >> > > energy in a physical system that cannot be used to do work."
> >> >> >> > > (http://
> >> >> >> > > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy)
>
> >> >> >> > > If energy is the ability to do work, but at the same time
> >> >> >> > > entropy
> >> >> >> > > implies that some portion of energy is not available to do
> >> >> >> > > work,
> >> >> >> > > then
> >> >> >> > > how do we re-define that portion of the energy in a system not
> >> >> >> > > available to do work? Is there a more complex definition of
> >> >> >> > > energy?
>
> >> >> >> > That's actually an excellent point. Kinetic energy, one of the
> >> >> >> > forms
> >> >> >> > of energy, is divided into stochastic and collective energy. The
> >> >> >> > collective energy is the kind of thing you would write (1/2)mv^2
> >> >> >> > for
> >> >> >> > a
> >> >> >> > baseball of mass m. Stochastic energy is that which is indicated
> >> >> >> > (but
> >> >> >> > not measured) by a thermometer; it is the *random* kinetic energy
> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> > the individual molecules in the body. The former can be wholly
> >> >> >> > converted into work. The latter can only be partially converted,
> >> >> >> > with
> >> >> >> > the limit set by Carnot's Theorem.
>
> >> >> >> > In addition, rest energy (the energy associated with rest mass)
> >> >> >> > can't
> >> >> >> > be converted into work, but the entropic definition above has
> >> >> >> > nothing
> >> >> >> > to do with this.
>
> >> >> >> > I don't know of any other cases, off the top of my head.
>
> >> >> >> Defining energy in terms of work is just the 19th century
> >> >> >> macroscopic
> >> >> >> approach to physics before the atomic basis of nature was
> >> >> >> available.
> >> >> >> It is not logical to define the parts in terms of pieces of the
> >> >> >> whole since this misses out the synergistic component of bringing
> >> >> >> parts together: this is cookery. The macro (like averages) must be
> >> >> >> defined in terms of the micro. This is why Maxwell's Equations of
> >> >> >> EM
> >> >> >> is a statistical theory and NOT a fundamental theory of physics.
>
> >> >> > ---------------------
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > quote
> >> >> > 'since this misses out the synergistic component of bringing
> >> >> > parts together: this is cookery
> >> >> > end of quote
>
> >> >> > that cookery that you are talking about
> >> >> > showes us clearly
> >> >> > that biding energies = mass loss!!
>
> >> >> Indeed it does .. been telling you that for a while.
>
> >> >> > iow
> >> >> > lost of mass that is transformed to
> >> >> > ENERGY!!
>
> >> >> Indeed it is .. and that does not need to be mass IN MOTION. It is
> >> >> the
> >> >> REST
> >> >> mass.
>
> >> >> > (by **exactly !!!****
> >> >> > again - *exactly * E=mc^2
>
> >> >> Yeup
>
> >> >> > is a wonderful prove that
> >> >> > energy is
> >> >> > MASS IN MOTION !!
>
> >> >> NO ... because E = mc^2 is the relationship between REST energy and
> >> >> REST
> >> >> mass when NOT IN MOTION
>
> >> > ----------------
> >> > psychopath
> >> > Y.P
> >> > ------------------
>
> >> "psychopath Y.P" .. how true that is. Incapable of rational discussion
> >> (or
> >> rational thought) .. he's a senile old man with delusions of grandeur and
> >> anger management issues who should be on medication for his illness.
>
> > ------------------
> > th eretarded psychopath clames
>
> What is it you are claiming this time, Porat?
>
> > that the amount of enery emitted by the sun
> > in half a second( HALF A SECOND)
> > '**is the same** as in
> > ONE SECOND !!
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if you claimed that at all. Of course, *I* have
> never claimed such a thing, nor said anything that could imply that. In
> fact I have said the exact opposite from my first postings here.
>
> > got it who is that retarded Josef Goebbels ???
>
> You are. We all know that.
>
> > even Goebbels had just one name
> > that psychopath pig crook anonymous
> > is called
> > 1 artful
> > 2 inertial
> > 3 his real name !!
> > sometimes 1 and 2 in one thread !!
>
> > got it readers with whom we are dealing ???
>
> Yes .. they all understand you are a senile old man with anger management
> issues who need psychological help.
>
> And as I Have explained, I am someone who was away from home and couldn't
> use his usual newsgroup server and so used a different account.
>
> So .when are you going to stop lying Porat?
---------------------
psychopath
------------------------
Inertial
Stalker